Joseph Dearing, with a strange, low-key but in-your-face delivery, asked the Republican presidential candidates in the CNN/YouTube debate on Nov. 28 if they believe every word of the Bible, and those who answered said essentially that they believe the Bible, but not all that is written in it, as it is written, but they never said where and how the history in the Bible is supposedly wrong (except Giuliani that the whale didn’t swallow Jonah), so of course, Bible skeptics say “ah ha, they believe the Bible, but not all of it, so where’s the intellectual consistency?”

Obviously, the question was geared to Genesis history, as that is the most controversial portion of Biblical history, but the candidates somewhat adroitly avoided discussing the six days of creation, Noah’s Flood, the Table of Nations (Genesis 10), how the Ice Age fits in, and all the other components of the Global Flood Model discussed at this blogsite.

If but one of the candidates had been knowledgable on the science of Genesis history, he could have said:

“Only warmer oceans from Noah’s Flood, geothermal heating of the oceans from below, could have caused the dense worldwide cloudcover for the Ice Age, great corroboration of the Biblical account, in defiance of mainstream notions, but nevertheless, the only way the Ice Age could have been caused, when you analyze the hydrology involved, so we see that any global atmospheric warming today would cause more cloudcover which cools the atmosphere back down, a negative feedback mechanism, such as we see with hurricanes, which cool the atmosphere back down.”

Such a statement would send the mainstream scientists scurrying, to then reluctantly concur that Genesis does in fact have much explanatory power, but even the theologian candidate Mike Huckabee squandered the opportunity, ostensibly through ignorance, so somebody please let the candidates know that there is a plethora of good reasons to believe the Bible, as it reads, not as one might like to interpret it, such as the candidates who were clearly implying that the Bible is mostly wrong about Genesis history, as it supposedly belies good science, which in fact, it does not. See http://genesisveracityfoundation.com.

The powers that be at “fair and balanced” Fox News are going out of their way to try to make Rudy look bad compared to other Republican candidates in the presidential primaries. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox, has said publicly that he supports Hillary, and Fox News’ supposedly objective pollster, Frank Luntz, looks like a total schill for Murdoch, attacking the only Republican candidate who can beat Hillary, Rudy Giuliani.

This morning on Fox and Friends, Luntz was on, talking about his focus group’s feelings about what the candidates were saying during the debate last night, with his “patented Fox opinion nobs” for the focus group members, to register their like or dislike of what was being said by the respective candidates, moment by moment, during the debate.

Luntz showed low opinion nob graphs from when Rudy was talking about the high crime and necessities of his having been an incoming Republican mayor in Democrat New York City, with no relief forthcoming from the federal immigration authorities. He worked with what he had to work with, but Luntz showed the reactions to Rudy’s recitation of what New York was like, sky high crime rates, before his great work as mayor began to pay off. The focus group was responding to “high crime rate” and “lack of federal immigration authority responsiveness” with the low opinion nob ratings at that point, which Luntz deceptively presented as indicative of how people feel about Rudy’s presidential platform concerning illegal immigration.

Luntz is plainly a schill to try to sabotage Rudy’s run, as the Democrats, Luntz, and Rupert Murdoch, know that Rudy would beat Hillary, while the other Republican candidates would stand little chance, so they try to make Rudy look bad, deceptively, all too obviously. So stand alert to this charade over at Fox, the “fair and balanced” network, as they seek to assist Hillary by attempting to sabotage the candidacy of the only Republican who will beat Hillary, Rudy Giuliani.

We hear alot about the Republican presidential candidates’ jockeying for position in the upcoming Iowa and New Hamphire primaries, about how Huckabee is supposedly wowing the experts with his surge to 17%, how Romney is being done wrong by Christians saying Mormons are not Christians, and how Rudy might take first or second in both states, as if Rudy is just one of the crowd.

However, do we ever hear how Rudy is doing nationally, how the national Republican electorate sees the race, the national pulse? I haven’t, so I googled up a study by Patrick Rhamey of the University of Georgia, which says that Rudy is beating his nearest rival, Romney, by 3 to 1 in projected delegate counts from the states, and Rudy leads McCain and Thompson by a 5 to 1 margin, so why is this not much discussed by the mainstream media?

Everybody knows that Rudy has the best chance of beating Hillary, so mainstream media types, such as pollster Frank Luntz, openly chastise Christians for saying that Mormonism is not really Christianity, in hopes that Romney may upset Giuliani, and then go down in flames against Hillary, who would do just about anything to beat him, including pointing out that Mormons teach that Satan and Jesus are brothers, perhaps Eleanor Roosevelt would channel this through Hillary, ha ha.

And I thought Frank Luntz was a pollster, just seeking-out public opinion, but here he is schlupping for Romney like one of his frontmen, what a joke, and all because Luntz and many other mainstream media types want an easy opponent in the general election for Hillary, anybody but Rudy would be fine for them, and so, they have deliberately avoided talking about Rudy’s huge lead in the projected Republican delegate count, to pump up Rudy’s opponents.

You will never hear a Democrat candidate proponing school choice for American families, where about $10,000 per year per child would be allowed to families who want to send their kids to schools other than public schools, to large religious schools, or small ones, to home schools, or secular private schools; options, what the people want, particularly low income families, as they now can’t afford to send their kids anywhere other than public schools which, as we all know, often fall far short of the mark of academic adequacy.

Everybody knows that most non-public schools outperform the public schools, so why penalize low income families by denying them budgeted educational funding for the schools of the parents’ choice? Why should the parents be forced to use the public schools when most private schools are providing a superior product?

Don’t we want the best for our kids? Yes. So why do Hillary, Obama, and the other Democrat candidates, deny this easy and obvious education benefit option to American families? It is because they are beholden to the public schools teachers’ unions, and to the Darwinian dogma for which they are bulldog-like champions.

The Democrats want government control of education, to teach their dogma, their social engineering, how to be “global citizens” and all, to not teach the U.S. Constitution, nor the scientific alternative to Darwinism, nor accurate ancient history, and always with a bias against Christianity, if you analyze the public school material.

So the Democrats would deny a low income family with four kids a $40,000 voucher per year to send their kids to a school other than a public school. Can you imagine the number of families who would jump at this opportunity? Sure, the public schools would lose students, and their funding would decrease, but that should be incentive for them to improve, afterall, most families would prefer that their kids go to public schools, if only the publics were nearly as good as the non-public schools.

The rank and file of Democrats are very concerned about Hillary’s candidacy. A growing number of them obviously don’t want her to be the Democrat nominee for President, and so, they are working hard for Barack Obama, with Oprah Winfrey even planning to stump for Obama in Iowa, then New Hampshire, in the upcoming weeks.

Obama has raised almost as much money as Hillary, and anti-Hillary sentiment in the Democrat Party is palpable, now becoming apparent in the polls, so Obama just might pull off the upset. And with the very influential Oprah hitting the campaign trail for Obama, the female Democrat vote, Hillary’s ace in the hole, now is in jeopardy.

I don’t think Hillary expected this kind of opposition within her own party. Sure, she knows that she has a negative approval rating of around 40% across the board, much higher than any other candidate, but she wasn’t expecting that kind of negative approval within her own party, these are Democrats who refuse to vote for her in almost any circumstance, many of whom would vote for Giuliani over Hillary, to avoid subjecting the American people to four more years of the Clintons’ act.

Most Democrats can’t stand the prospect of incessant jokes for four years about Hillary’s “First Gentleman” Bill, even though most of them still love the ex president, despite that he never got 50% of the vote in his two elections to the presidency, and his “policy achievements” were actually just aquiescences to Republican Congressional mandates.

Back in the 90’s, Hillary Clinton claimed that she could channel the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt, so will she make it happen during the 2008 presidential debates, to show what the real Hillary (with the elusive “Eleanor”) can do? I suppose it would not be very presidential to go into a trance, beginning to speak “the words of Eleanor Roosevelt,” but it would generate alot of publicity, wouldn’t you say?

Of course, trying to communicate with the dead is Biblically forbidden, so I wonder what Hillary’s United Methodist Church has to say about all this? New Age “channeling” is anathema to Christianity, so Hillary’s claim about Eleanor is a real problem for most Christians, but maybe, the majority of Americans wouldn’t mind having a President who seeks advice from dead people through cosmic ether-wave vibrations, or however that deal supposedly works.

The BBC Online published an article entitled “Eco-ruin Felled Early Society,” Nov. 15, 2007, which provides the evidences that a drastic climate change shut-down the Bronze Age townships of Andalucia, in southeastern Spain, which is now mostly desert, but was then lush pastures and forests of oaks and pines, which rapidly dried out when the Ice Age ended, ‘though the mainstream scientists in the article do not acknowledge this obvious deduction, because they are locked into their Darwinian/Lyellian timeline, that “the Ice Age ended circa 10000 B.C.”

Jose Carrion, scientist at the University of Murcia, took core samples from a bog in the Sierra de Baza highlands, and the core samples showed pollen from dense oak and pine forests, and pollen from diverse pasture plantlife, followed by soot in the core samples, from apparent vast burning to clear forests for farming, and followed then by low pollen counts reflective of the current dry climatic regime.

Carrion figures the Bronze Age townships there in southeastern Spain were built circa 2300 B.C., and declined rapidly circa 1600 B.C., right on both counts, but he and the BBC want us to believe that the burning of the forests for pastureland had much to do with the desertification of southern Spain, however, they full well know that just because some forests are burned in a region does not mean the rainfall declines by about 400%, as it did at that time when, in reality, the Ice Age was ending.

Carrion’s paper was published in the prestigious mainstream periodical, the Quarternary Review, but don’t look for them to conclude that the end-of-the-Ice-Age climate change was responsible, as they say that the drastic change was just a fairly minor cyclical type deal, all 400% of that rainfall reduction which caused the end of the Bronze Age!

And of course, with the submerged Bronze Age megalithic building ruins found offshore southern Spain (in the Gulf of Cadiz and east of Gibraltar too), they would never think to equate the climate change which ended the Bronze Age with the sea level rise which submerged the Bronze Age megaliths now found off Tarifa, Huelva, Chipiona, and Rota, among other locations, because those are of the Atlantean Empire, “and everybody knows that’s just mythology.”

This Blog…

The author is a young earth creationist, who is commenting on how mainstream scientists and New Agers are missing the boat (willfully in many cases) as they interpret the evidences about our ancient history.